That's for the OP's daughter to decide, not the OP or you

"I love my baby so much, I'm going to have it killed." I know you're young and all, but don't kid yourself. Anyone who has an abortion has it for their own sake, not for the baby's. That is, of course, with the obvious exception of those who have an abortion for medical reasons. People who really care about their untimely conceived child put their baby up for adoption.

Abortion and killing a baby is not the same thing! You don't kill a baby, you kill a fetus that never lived, can't feel pain and isn't even aware of its own existence! I'm not saying it wouldn't have been hard, but it would probably have been for the best.

Pandacupcake- Well at least you admit that it's killing

Whatever you want to call it, a fetus or a baby, you're killing it. It's completely disingenuous when pro cho

Whatever you want to call it, a fetus or a baby, an abortion kills it. It's completely disingenuous when pro choicers pretend that abortion is a decision made with the developing baby's wellbeing in mind, and people can see right through it. I don't see why they don't simply use the standard "my body, my choice" argument. It's more believable, at least.

So you think it's better to give birth to a child, get attached to it and then have to give it away? Why would you do that? As i said, the fetus doesn't feel anything and isn't even aware of its own existence. It's an it. Not a he or she. It never lived, so you're not taking its life away, cause there was never a life! There just could have been.

"So you think it's better to give birth to a baby, get attached to it, and then have to give it away? Why would you do that?" For the baby's sake. The baby gets adopted into a family who wants him/ her. It's the mother who bears the hardship you just described. The baby is not aware of what is happening in that situation. So again, don't kid yourself. If a woman gets an abortion to avoid that experience it's for her own sake, not the baby's. If you want to argue that it's a woman's right to do what she wants with her body and what's in her body, and that a fetus does not experience an abortion in the same way a baby experiences death, then that's a fair. But don't lie to yourself about whose wellbeing you'd be considering when deciding to have an abortion for nonmedical reasons.

Both ways hurt, it's not like it's an easy way out to have an abortion. And as I said several times, the baby doesn't get hurt because it doesn't yet exist. If I had never been born, that wouldn't mean anything to me because I wouldn't exist. Get what I'm saying? I see your point, but I stand by my opinion.

I never said having an abortion was easy. There's obviously no easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy. But when a woman gets an abortion it's because it's easier for her than any other option. You can stand by your opinion on abortion all you want. Just don't lie to yourself.

And anyway, you're argument that a fetus is unaware of its existence and does not feel pain is inconsistent with your point that abortion is best for the baby. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from that argument is that an abortion is inconsequential for the fetus. Therefore, why take the fetus into account when considering an abortion? Obviously the only party affected by the abortion would be the woman having the abortion. Therefore, her well being is the only one to be considered. Conversely, if we are to believe that an abortion would affect the fetus, then most would come to the conclusion that life in an adopted family is better than death.

It's not a death when it was never a life, I'm done here, have a nice day.

I know you mentioned medical reasons as being a valid reason for abortion, Gracehi, but even for non medical reasons it can be best for the child not to be born. What if a woman had a termination because she was trying to protect the fetus from an abusive relative/friend? Would that be considered medical reasons? There are many social considerations to take into account, though granted they might often be extreme examples, they do exist. Also, adoption doesn't always have a happy ending, and can be very difficult for the mother to go through as well, and can be difficult for the child too. The same is true of abortion, it's a very difficult decision that is usually taken when it is believed to be the best option.

Pandacupcakelove, you completely missed the point I was making in my last comment. I'm not making a pro life argument here, nor am I trying to sway your opinion on abortion. I'm simply pointing out that your logic is flawed. I don't mean to be condescending, but I know that you are young and are likely mimicking arguments from people who are older than you. I only hope that you don't repeat the flawed arguments and scientific falsehoods you have claimed here in a debate with someone more passionate and less kind than I. Vastly more importantly, I also hope that if (God forbid!) you are ever faced with this difficult decision yourself, you do not make your decision based on flawed logic and scientific falsehoods. First of all, stop referring to a fetus as a non-living entity. That is biologically incorrect, and when a pro-choicer makes such an argument, it is because they are ill informed on the subject. Even abortionists willingly admit that they kill living beings in their work. You can easily verify this with a quick google search. The queston of the moral validity on abortion is not centered around whether or not a fetus is living. It all hinges on what qualifies an unborn baby for the rights of personhood, and how heavily that should be weighed against the mother's rights. When informed pro-choicers make the argument for abortion, they typically refer to brain development and often the fetus's capacity to feel pain. They do not dare question if a fetus is living because they would immediately be shot down with irrefutable scientific fact. Second of all, your initial comment was that abortion was "for the baby's sake!" but you have not since made a single argument supporting that claim. On the contrary, all of your arguments inescapably lead to the conclusion that abortion is inconsequential to the baby and that alternatives may adversely affect the mother. You claim that a fetus is unaware of its existence, and would therefore also be unaware of any life it would have missed. You then also said that adoption is emotionally taxing on the mother. From that argument we can only conclude that a fetus is unaffected by abortion and that the mother may be spared terrible strife. That inevitably leads us to the final concision that only the pregnant woman's fate should be considered in the question of abortion, while the baby's fate is irrelevant. But you know what? There's nothing wrong with that argument. It is, in fact, the central argument of the pro-choice movement world wide. In any case, pandacupcakelove, I strongly suggest you do your research on this subject and draw your own conclusions. Think hard and long about it. If you believe that abortion is a woman's choice, you must also believe that women should be able to make an informed choice. I hope you get yourself some factual information. Cinn, You're 22 and should know better. If a woman recognizes that she has a dangerous and abusive person in her life, she would get that person out of her life, whether she was expecting a child or not. The reason people maintain abusive relationships (romantic or otherwise) is because they are in denial about the nature of their relationship. I say this from personal experience. I was married to an abusive man, and for some time I refused to acknowledge his violent behavior towards me was abuse. When I finally did leave him, it was not only because I wanted to protect myself, but also because I didn't want my future children growing up in a violent home. A woman who cares enough about the baby growing inside her to protect him/her from abuse would not have an abortion. Once you begin to think of the thing forming in your womb as your child, it is impossible to go through with terminating it. That is why other situations in which a future child's life would be difficult is not a factor in abortion. If a mother to-be is concerned for the welfare of her future child, there are always options other than abortion. Also, adoption agencies, at least the ones that select adoptive parents for children before they are born, perform thorough background checks. Adoption is also a long and expensive process. Why go through all that trouble just to abuse and neglect the child you acquire? A child who is adopted is actually less likely to be abused and neglected than one who isn't. Thus, women who get abortions are concerned with their own wellbeing, not the fetus's. They must also not think of the fetus as a child who may or may not endure suffering in life, but as an unfeeling and mindless cluster of cells in their body that will cause them great trouble. They can ONLY think of it that way, or else an abortion would be emotionally unbearable. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It's just the way it is. To argue otherwise is nothing short of ridiculous.